BRIJ BHUSHAN Vs. MAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated February 4, 1987, passed by the learned District Judge, Kurukshetra [exercising the power of Appellate Authority under section 15(2) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973]. An application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to lead additional evidence during the pendency of the appeal has been dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner had sought ejectment of the tenant-respondent inter alia on the ground that he wants to occupy the premises in dispute and sought to establish his personal necessity. In the course of evidence before the learned Rent Controller he produced his son Krishan Kumar AW 4 who stated that he is employed in Haryana State Electricity Board and is posted at Rohtak. His children are also residing and studying at Rohtak. He wanted to shift alongwith his children to Kaithal where the property in dispute is situated. The learned Rent Controller disbelieved his version on the ground that no cause for his shifting from Rohtak to Kaithal has been established.

(3.) HAVING gone through the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, I find that he has rightly exercise his jurisdiction in declining the prayer for additional evidence. No error of jurisdiction has been pointed out.